One can’t discuss the Mike Strickland gun case in Portland, Oregon without considering the first amendment ramifications of his prosecution.
Strickland, a freelance journalist, drew his legal, licensed, registered concealed hand gun while covering a Black Lives Matter/Don’t Shoot PDX march and rally July 7, 2016.
After covering the event for awhile, Strickland was forced to draw his weapon, a Glock handgun, to stop a phalanx of protesters who converged on him. The mob came from three sides in order to attack and stop him from covering the rally.
Believing he was in danger, Strickland swept the black bloc attired mob, without his finger on the trigger, to stop the threat coming at him from the left. He then protected his right flank, sweeping the people converging on him from the front.
His self defense move worked long enough for him to back away from the mob. When he got to relative safety, he surrendered to police–who had just arrived about a block away.
Strickland drew his pistol after getting assaulted–roughed up if you prefer–by the same mob of people mere moments before. This time, he knew they were going to ‘get’ him–because they told him–and he drew.
Indeed, as video proves, the mob surrounding him began yelling “He’s got a gun! He’s got a gun!” before he even showed his gun or drew it. They knew he carried.
One was overheard on video bragging that they had gotten him to draw his weapon.
A witness in court testified there had been a conspiracy by anarchists to assault him and toss him out of the rally.
Strickland was questioned and released the night of his attack and he was ordered to court on a misdemeanor count of menacing.
When it was discovered who prosecutors had–the hated Laughing at Liberals guy–the 1 charge turned into 21 and the 1 misdemeanor turned into multiple felonies.
Deputy District Attorney, Kate Molina, decided that Strickland was a danger to society and–who knew?– was a “white nationalist” and “racist.”
The “racist” label was attached to Strickland for his coverage of a “whiteness” lecture series which made national news. It certainly was not due to Strickland’s own beliefs and actions. But thereafter, protesters routinely yelled at rallies and marches that he was a racist or white nationalist in order to incite violence against him and ruin his video coverage of them.
The prosecutor took the word of the people who had-it-in-for Strickland and, using prosecutorial discretion, sprinkled fairy dust on the assaultive mob who then magically became ‘victims.’
Strickland’s attorneys told me they believe the prosecution always had been a political statement.
An outside attorney who lives in Vancouver, Washington arrived at the same conclusion and wrote me:
“Prosecutorial zeal and judicial hostility to the Second Amendment have combined in a perfect storm of injustice.”
In leftist, anti-gun Portland, a simple act of self defense was inflated into a 21 count felony indictment that could land the 37-year-old Portland journalist in prison for 50+ years.
Abject lies about Strickland’s ‘racism’ and ‘white nationalism’–made-up thought crimes–enhanced the charges against him. Deputy district attorney Kate Molina said so in court.
Strickland’s bail blew up to $250,000. The charges included 10 counts of unlawful use of a weapon, 10 counts of menacing and one count of disorderly conduct.
Court watchers told me that after fewer than five minutes of reflection, on Friday, February 10, 2017, Judge Thomas Ryan announced his verdict: guilty on all 21 counts.
By now you may have read the various posts about this case. Maybe you’ve seen the video of the mob going after Strickland.
Here’s what you don’t know.
Ever since Strickland was formally charged, his own video of what happened that day has been under seal. It saw daylight only to be shown in court the day the judge convicted him. The judge said the attack by the mob should have NO bearing on Strickland’s actions that day.
But there’s more.
Strickland has been ordered not to do what he did for a living. He can’t work.
- He can’t blog or write.
- He can’t go near any protest.
- He can’t video any protest.
The institutional left in Portland has silenced a contrary political voice. Moreover, the institutional left in Portland has done so to a journalist.
The leftist protesters and some members of institutional Portland–Cease Fire Oregon, perhaps?–allowed this miscarriage of justice to occur to a person with an unpopular viewpoint who defended himself with unpopular weapon.
As you can read in my posts (see below), after Strickland’s incident, a local television photographer was injured while covering a mob, other reporters were threatened by anarchists if they dared use their cameras to show protesters … or else.
Anarchists were running the show on the streets. Who was running the prosecutor’s office?
The one guy who tried to defend himself was brought up on 21-felony charges and faces decades in prison. And the very people who assaulted him in order to shut him up haven’t been charged.
Let’s stop and appreciate this for just moment. Prosecutors, the mayor, police–institutional Portland–threw the book at a guy who defended himself from getting the shit beat out of him by a bunch of anarchists because they don’t like his viewpoint and were trying to stop him from reporting a story.
In short, if you defend yourself you could be thrown in prison just because they don’t like your political viewpoint. That’s a powerful message to send a community.
And Strickland can’t say one word to defend himself…or else.
Please donate generously here to Strickland’s defense fund being overseen by the Oregon Firearms Federation.
Here are my previous posts on this case:
If we could get a few more people there maybe we could jack people’s $$ for the legal defense fund. Like have a table there and get names, addresses and money to get an email list going. Now here’s something Mike has mentioned before and it really hit home to me when I was filling out the questionnaire for the ACLJ today (I’ll follow up with a phone call, but first things first). Mike not only has issues with the second amendment, he has issues with the first amendment in two ways. For one, Mult Co, I believe but can’t prove–yet, singled him out for his beliefs. Viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional. That’s where Kathleen was earlier talking about getting emails and doing FOIA stuff. This is where that could fit in. Plus, they went after a journalist and were perfectly fine with a mob going after someone there covering the news. That’s not unconstitutional per se, but it
it’s like doing an ole and letting the mob get him for his viewpoint. That whole racist BS that enhanced his charges is BS.